Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
durbster said:
LongQ said:
It was directed at all who were likely to produce press releases, speeches and any form of communication about the Global Warming message to try to ensure that the entire movement was using and repeating exactly the same set of consistent and emotive words a phrases in order to deliver a constant message that would become ingrained due to perpetual repetition.
I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
You're talking about turbobloke, right?I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
Jazzy Jag said:
What is weird is that they say Venus is the closest then only state the furthest it gets. At the closest it is almost like the proverbial walk to the chemist.Jazzy Jag said:
"All the carbon dioxide we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."Quote from the author of the paper in question.
Jazzy Jag said:
"“The climate cycles are directly related to how the Earth orbits the sun and slight variations in sunlight reaching Earth lead to climate and ecological changes,” said Kent, who studies Earth’s magnetic field. "Move over Sherlock Holmes.
hairykrishna said:
Jazzy Jag said:
"All the carbon dioxide we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."Quote from the author of the paper in question.
Or has he been told/prompted to say that to ensure there is a deflection statement in place in case any "deniers" jump on his paper as evidence that there are so many previously unconsidered factors that might need to be considered?
Why not write and ask him hairy? He might come up with something that allows you to conclude this thread once and for all.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 9th May 21:43
How the sea and sky interact to modulate temperature....
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/09/clouds-and-...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/09/clouds-and-...
Current state of the polar regions.
Full information here
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
The current Arctic, Arctic and Global trend for ice is still going down. Looks like Arctic this year will be about 4 million km2 in extent so matching the lowest in recent years, forgetting the exceptional years of 2007 and 2012. 2018 looks like a standard year that will be close to exceptional years.
For the Antarctic this has dropped a lot since about 2015. There was a reason for this being the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) being negative due to 2017 summer down there,put forward by NSIDC, but looking at the graphs I doubt this is a reason. I raised that with NSIDC and they have not got back to me. The current SAM is neutral. Would be good to watch.
Full information here
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
The current Arctic, Arctic and Global trend for ice is still going down. Looks like Arctic this year will be about 4 million km2 in extent so matching the lowest in recent years, forgetting the exceptional years of 2007 and 2012. 2018 looks like a standard year that will be close to exceptional years.
For the Antarctic this has dropped a lot since about 2015. There was a reason for this being the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) being negative due to 2017 summer down there,put forward by NSIDC, but looking at the graphs I doubt this is a reason. I raised that with NSIDC and they have not got back to me. The current SAM is neutral. Would be good to watch.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
It was directed at all who were likely to produce press releases, speeches and any form of communication about the Global Warming message to try to ensure that the entire movement was using and repeating exactly the same set of consistent and emotive words a phrases in order to deliver a constant message that would become ingrained due to perpetual repetition.
I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
You're talking about turbobloke, right?I have no doubt that it worked rather well.
Just because he seems like
1. King Canute.
2. Rambo with a CO2 infused head band and serrated keyboard.
3. Mr Idonthaveapropperhobby
Is not a reason you can pass aspersions on him. I've been crowdfunding him for years as nobody else will, so do not appreciate your bad mouthing the next Newton / WattsUpWithThat in our very presence.
At least he gives us all s
tz and gigglez, you must admit?Cheers
Discovery of the lost Nitrogen!
Here's the Daily Mail version of the press release, presumably created on East Coast USA.
Does anyone want to take a stab at looking at the original paper?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-578...
Here's the Daily Mail version of the press release, presumably created on East Coast USA.
Does anyone want to take a stab at looking at the original paper?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-578...
LongQ said:
Does anyone want to take a stab at looking at the original paper?
It's herehttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/58/...
LongQ said:
Discovery of the lost Nitrogen!
Here's the Daily Mail version of the press release, presumably created on East Coast USA.
Does anyone want to take a stab at looking at the original paper?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-578...
Oh no, climate models might be wrong! Who would eve have thought it? But never mind, I'm sure a parameter (a guess) can be fitted in somewhere to give the answer(s) AGW advocates want. Wonder if they’ve sorted out the planets tree estimate wrong by a factor of 8 yet?Here's the Daily Mail version of the press release, presumably created on East Coast USA.
Does anyone want to take a stab at looking at the original paper?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-578...
Then again Figueres may be be right!
http://time.com/4804073/donald-trump-kofi-annan-ch...
The science and the politics engaged in deadly embrace a long time ago.
Both lose.
http://time.com/4804073/donald-trump-kofi-annan-ch...
The science and the politics engaged in deadly embrace a long time ago.
Both lose.
New Scientist sent me an email today (rare these days, not sure why they did except as a tempter to sign up for a subscription) about the discovery that water is actually two liquids.
I'd not heard of that before so thought I would have a read. So just at the point that the article is running out of scene-setting waffle ... up pops the "if you want to read anything interesting you will have to subscribe" window.
Well, there are usually other sources via the usual searches so I tried them and a lot of discoveries appeared, most f which seemed to have almost identical phrases. Then I noticed they were all dated June 2017. So is NS just a bit slow on the uptake or are they trying to recycle old news or have they added something really useful and exciting that follows a further year of research?
Who knows, maybe more items will pop up in the next few days.
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
I'd not heard of that before so thought I would have a read. So just at the point that the article is running out of scene-setting waffle ... up pops the "if you want to read anything interesting you will have to subscribe" window.
Well, there are usually other sources via the usual searches so I tried them and a lot of discoveries appeared, most f which seemed to have almost identical phrases. Then I noticed they were all dated June 2017. So is NS just a bit slow on the uptake or are they trying to recycle old news or have they added something really useful and exciting that follows a further year of research?
Who knows, maybe more items will pop up in the next few days.
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
LongQ said:
New Scientist sent me an email today (rare these days, not sure why they did except as a tempter to sign up for a subscription) about the discovery that water is actually two liquids.
I'd not heard of that before so thought I would have a read. So just at the point that the article is running out of scene-setting waffle ... up pops the "if you want to read anything interesting you will have to subscribe" window.
Well, there are usually other sources via the usual searches so I tried them and a lot of discoveries appeared, most f which seemed to have almost identical phrases. Then I noticed they were all dated June 2017. So is NS just a bit slow on the uptake or are they trying to recycle old news or have they added something really useful and exciting that follows a further year of research?
Who knows, maybe more items will pop up in the next few days.
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
It explains that if we are just starting to understand something that covers 2/3 of the earth's surface we have little chance of understanding totally how the climate works.I'd not heard of that before so thought I would have a read. So just at the point that the article is running out of scene-setting waffle ... up pops the "if you want to read anything interesting you will have to subscribe" window.
Well, there are usually other sources via the usual searches so I tried them and a lot of discoveries appeared, most f which seemed to have almost identical phrases. Then I noticed they were all dated June 2017. So is NS just a bit slow on the uptake or are they trying to recycle old news or have they added something really useful and exciting that follows a further year of research?
Who knows, maybe more items will pop up in the next few days.
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
LongQ said:
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
The paper appears to be about how amorphous ice exhibits liquid behavior as it transitions from high-to low-density form not two liquids as such. The temperatures in question are below 130K and, if I I remember correctly, forming the high density type of amorphous ice requires pressures of ~1000MPa. I don't think it has much to tell us about climate.
hairykrishna said:
LongQ said:
Since the differences in the two liquids seems to be a matter of density at a very specific point in a temperature range one wonders whether there is an energy flux to consider. If so might that explain Trenberth's missing heat? Presumably if he thought it did we would have heard about it by now, with or without the involvement of NS.
The paper appears to be about how amorphous ice exhibits liquid behavior as it transitions from high-to low-density form not two liquids as such. The temperatures in question are below 130K and, if I I remember correctly, forming the high density type of amorphous ice requires pressures of ~1000MPa. I don't think it has much to tell us about climate.
However there does seem to be something from Oxford that pre-dates the 2017 pieces that seems to be suggesting something else can happen at higher temperatures (40 - 60 C) that os is a similar "exists in two states at the same time". phenomenon
That makes the apparent information in the NS article even stranger in terms of "why publish this now?"
PRTVR said:
It explains that if we are just starting to understand something that covers 2/3 of the earth's surface we have little chance of understanding totally how the climate works.
Totally agree.Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.
It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.
Gandahar said:
Totally agree.
Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.
It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.
They are not even close to rough generalisation yet. Given as the underlying principles they use are based on the laws of systems in equilibrium that do not apply in dynamic coupled chaotic systems there is a long way (and a lot of difficult maths - much beyond the skills of glorified geography teachers) to be discovered. Averaging out the cyclical changes and then applying laws that only apply to systems in equilibrium to these averages (because the average looks flat and hence "looks like it is in equilibrium") is so far away from correct it falls into the "not even wrong" category. Hence why people who totally write off climate science as a fraud etc are equally wrong.
It's a non trivial physical thing to measure so difficult to pin accurate figures on currently, fine tuning will take a long time.
We haven't got enough data to determine if there is even a problem yet - never mind quantifying it.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff